As we move toward consideration of articles of impeachment of a
president for only the second time in the past 130 years, I recognize
the gravity of the matter before us. For the decision we make today
is important not only now, but important for future members of
Congress and for our children and grandchildren as well.

The president's actions were wrong. It was wrong for him to make
false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with a
subordinate, and it was wrong for him to take steps to delay discovery
of the truth.

But the constitutional question is not whether his actions were
right or wrong; the question is whether his actions rise to the level
of an impeachable offense and, if so, should we invoke this drastic
constitutional remedy of impeachment, set aside the only national
election in this country, and remove him from office? And ultimately,
the question is, what is best for the people of this country?

To answer these questions, we have to ask another question: Who
committed these sins? Were these the sins of Bill Clinton the
president or Bill Clinton the man? To some, this is a distinction
without a difference. But I believe the Framers of our Constitution
contemplated a distinction when they wrote of "treason, bribery, and
other high crimes and misdemeanors." For if it was Bill Clinton the
president, if any wrongdoing he committed was committed against the
body politic, if it undermined our representative form of government,
then it would be necessary to remove him from office, not to punish
him, but to ensure that our democratic form of government is
safeguarded. But if the sin were committed by Bill Clinton the man --
sins nonetheless -- the decision becomes more difficult.

As our predecessors on this committee recognized 24 years ago,
impeachment is reserved for grave offenses against the state, those
that threaten our system of government. Not all crimes are
impeachable. One must examine the conduct in question to determine
whether it is impeachable.

Most offenses undermine one thing or another; that is why they
are proscribed by the criminal law. Most people would agree that
running a red light does not fall within that narrow category of
offenses that are impeachable, but if everyone did it, countless
people would die on unsafe streets.

So the question isn't whether lying under oath or perjury
undermine the system of justice in a general sense; the question is
whether the specific conduct represents a grave offenses against the
state and is a threat to our system of government.

Assuming that the evidence before us -- most of it hearsay
untested by cross-examination -- did establish perjury and obstruction
of justice, I would have to conclude that the matters the president's
-- the president allegedly lied about, the matters he allegedly
obstructed justice about, are not, except in the most attenuated,
abstract sense, a threat to our system of government. Is case is not
like Watergate, which involved the obvious and direct misuse of
government power, and it is not a case of lying or obstruction on a
matter of public concern.

We cannot escape the fact that the president's misconduct related to
his private life. It was not a grave and dangerous offense against
the state. It does not threaten our republic, and we need not remove
him to protect our democracy.

I acknowledge that there are exceptions to the rule that high
crimes and misdemeanors must relate to public conduct. If a president
had committed murder, not an offense against our representative form
of government, I would vote for impeachment. I believe I would be so
offended by the immorality and the intrinsic wrongfulness of the act
that our democratic system of government would have to be cleansed of
the wrongdoing. The allegations against the president, although
serious, do not rise to this level. So I must conclude that perjury
per se does not constitute an impeachable offense as intended by our
forefathers.

This is where I pause. I pause because the allegations against
the president do raise questions about his character. I ask myself,
it were a Republican president in this predicament, what would I do?
Would I maintain consistency and impose impeachment even if I both
opposed his public policies and personal conduct? I pray that I would
treat the two situations consistently. And I pray I never have to
face that question.

To those who fear that a vote against impeachment would mean that
it's okay to lie, it's okay to mislead and deceive, I submit that this
president has not and will not escape punishment. He has suffered a
public humiliation that few will ever know. And humiliation is not
the end of his troubles. If we reject impeachment in the next few
days, we can censure and condemn him for his conduct. There is no
constitutional bar to censure. It is within our power. More
importantly, it is the just and appropriate remedy for this
misconduct. For a man undoubtedly concerned about his place in
history, this is no small punishment. He would be only the second
president of the United States ever censured. What's more, we should
not forget that President Clinton is subject to criminal prosecution
after he completes his term of office. He is neither above the law
nor below it. He can and should be treated like every other citizen
who may have committed similar offenses.

Unfortunately, the president's conduct is not the only unsettling
component to our present crisis. I am also deeply, deeply troubled by
the events leading up to the president's deposition in the Jones case.
There clearly was a channel of communication between Ken Starr's
office and Paula Jones' attorneys through Linda Tripp, and I believe
her motives and actions, in part personal, in part political, cannot
be ignored here. If we are to set aside our only national election,
we must be confident that political enemies or political motives did
not set the stage for this political morality play, for if they did,
then there is a potentially greater danger here to our democracy than
lying about sex.

The grave act of setting aside a national election cannot be agitated
by those forces that failed to prevail at the ballot box.

I stress again that my deep concern about the Linda Tripp
connection in no way excuses Bill Clinton for his wrongdoing. That is
why it is important that he remain subject to appropriate criminal and
civil action after he leaves office, and that is why it is important
that this institution impose a sanction appropriate to the president's
actions. That is why I favor censure. A censure reflects the gravity
of the president's wrongdoing.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your decision to permit a
vote on our censure resolution here in committee. I agree with you
that it will foster comity. But I have another request, not just to
you, but to all my colleagues on this committee. I have listened as
many, if not most members on the Republican side of the aisle have
asserted that this is a vote of conscience. And Mr. Schippers, in his
closing argument, specifically noted the importance of voting one's
conscience. I respect each and every member of this committee who
votes his or her conscience. On a matter as important as this, party
identification should not be, must not be the deciding factor;
conscience must be.

So my request to you is a simple and straightforward one: please
let me vote my conscience, both here in committee and on the floor.
Please allow our censure resolution to move to the Rules Committee
either on a positive or negative vote. I, and many others in this
Congress, should not be denied the right to vote our conscience, the
right many here assert -- genuinely, I believe -- as their rationale
for supporting impeachment. To deny us that right would be the rawest
of raw partisan politics. It would confirm the fear that party
leaders and not conscience are dictating this committee's actions.
Not a single member of this institution should fear a vote of
conscience. Not a single member of this Congress should be part of
any plan to deny any other member of Congress the opportunity to vote
their conscience on an issue of as grave constitutional import as
this.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I joined this committee the day it
received the Starr report. I am the most junior member. I honestly
walked into the first hearing believing our proceeding would be
nonpartisan. I don't know if I was more like "Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington" or Gomer Pyle. I even thought that we might be sitting
physically like grand jurors, individually, not divided by party like
gladiators fighting a partisan fight. I was wrong. And I think many
members of this committee on both sides of the aisle are disappointed
on how partisan this has been. I don't think any of us intended it to
be this way. Perhaps I am as naive now as I was when I first joined
the committee, but I don't think so.

I call it optimism, because I believe my colleagues on this committee
recognize that our vote of conscience may be different from their vote
of conscience. And I believe that you know in your heart of hearts
that it would be a partisan tactic to prevent us from voting our
conscience.

Let's leave this room together, not as Democrats and Republicans;
let us leave this room as Americans, hand in hand, and take the vote
to the floor of the House of Representatives. Conscience will
prevail, conscience should prevail, and if that happens, justice will
prevail.

I yield back the balance of my time.

REP. HYDE: I thank the gentleman. Mr. Pease, the gentleman from
Indiana.